Enabling Grain Distribution and Food Labeling Using Protein

Chapter 5

Downloaded by UNIV OF IOWA on September 3, 2016 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: November 18, 2003 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2004-0866.ch005

Enabling Grain Distribution and Food Labeling Using Protein Immunoassays for Products of Agricultural Biotechnology James W. Stave, Michael C. Brown, Jon Chen, Alan B. McQuillin, and Dale V. Onisk Strategic Diagnostics Inc., 128 Sandy Drive, Newark, DE 19713

Protein immunoassays have been developed that allow assessment of a load of grain in the field utilizing USDA sampling protocols and statistical techniques that estimate the probability of a load containing biotech grain with high levels of confidence. Such applications are being implemented commercially on a large scale for both Roundup Ready soybeans and StarLink Cry9c corn. ELISA methods have been developed that can determine the concentration of Roundup Ready protein in processed fractions of soybean including defatted flakes, protein isolate, protein concentrate and toasted meal, and Cry9c protein in corn flour and meal. The use of these methods within a system of identity preservation enables the distribution of grain and labeling of finished foodstuffs in a way that food processors are able to comply with food labeling laws.

© 2004 American Chemical Society

Bhalgat et al.; Agricultural Biotechnology ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2003.

69


70 During the 1990's agricultural biotechnology companies introduced novel transgenic plants that contain small bits of new DNA which, in turn, code for the production of novel proteins that confer to the plant a unique characteristic, such as herbicide tolerance or insect protection. These novel bits of DNA and protein can be found in many different tissues of the plant, including seeds and grain and some of the processed foods prepared from them. There has been an explosive acceptance by farmers of these new crops since their introduction and many different plant species have been transformed including crops traded as large agricultural commodities. In the year 2000, approximately 63% of the soybeans grown in the U.S, 64% of the cotton and 24% of the corn were ag biotech varieties, and it has been estimated that 60-70% of all food products in the U.S. contain biotech ingredients.

Testing for Biotech With the introduction of new crops derived using biotechnology there has been a need to have tests that can detect them in consignments of raw agricultural commodities and finished foodstuffs. There are essentially two reasons why people would be interested in testing for biotech ingredients in food - potential food safety issues and consumer choice. The biotech crops that are currently in major commercial production have been approved by regulatory agencies in countries throughout the world who have determined that they are not a food safety issue. The second reason for testing for biotech crops involves the concept of consumer choice. There are many important socio-economic issues associated with these new crops including matters of international trade, intellectual property, environmental effects, biodiversity, sustainable agriculture, religious/ethical considerations, etc. Given the size and complexity of these issues it is perhaps not surprising that there is a lack of consensus regarding agricultural biotechnology, and so the concept has evolved that if experts and policy makers can't agree about these crops, then consumers should be given the right to make their own decision about whether they would like to purchase and consume foods containing biotech ingredients. As a result, a growing number of countries have enacted laws specifying that foods containing biotech ingredients be labeled as such, and labeling laws have created a need for testing. There are two test methodologies used for the detection and/or quantification of biotech ingredients. Immunoassays are used almost exclusively to detect the novel proteins produced by biotech crops, and the novel DNA is detected using the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). Immunoassays for biotech crops are available in two general forms, field-based, lateral flow strip tests used primarily for testing seed, leaf and grain, and laboratory-based ELISA



71 methods for testing processed ingredients. PCR methods are available for either qualitative screening applications or more quantitative analysis of specific transgenic events. An important consideration when testing in support of labeling biotech foods is whether the biotech event that is being tested for is approved or unapproved. If an event is unapproved the testing method need only be suitable for detecting the presence of the biotech ingredient, i.e., it does not need to be quantitative because the mere presence of the event is unacceptable. An example of this is testing for StarLink Cry9c corn that was approved for use in animal feed but found its way into food distribution channels (i). Testing for approved events requires that the test method be quantitative or be able to determine if the concentration of the biotech ingredient is above or below a specified threshold concentration with a stated degree of statistical confidence. An important component of the current laws governing the labeling of foods containing biotech ingredients is the establishment of threshold concentrations, over which a food needs to be labeled regarding biotech content. For example, in the E U labeling laws went into effect in April of 2000 mandating that foods containing greater than 1% genetically modified ingredients must be labeled (2). A similar law went into effect in Japan a year later specifying a 5% threshold (3). Food labeling laws define labeling thresholds in terms of "percent GMO" (genetically-modified organism). To determine the concentration of biotech ingredient in a food, the analyst determines the concentration of biotech protein or DNA in the sample and then estimates the %GMO concentration employing a number of assumptions such as protein expression levels or gene copy number in biotech plants. It is important to realize that protein methods report %GMO as the ratio of the weight of GMO to non-GMO in a sample (weight %) while realtime, quantitative PCR expresses %GMO as the ratio of transgenic DNA sequences to host DNA (mole %). These two definitions of %GMO do not necessarily yield the same result, and this is an important consideration when trying to use both methodologies throughout a complex food production, distribution and regulatory system. As a food progresses down the processing line towards final product, the money invested in the product is greater, the risk to the producer is higher and the analysis for biotech ingredients becomes more complex. For these reasons it is preferable to establish the identity of the biotech ingredient as a raw material before it enters into the food production process and then control the ingredient throughout the process rather than to test for unknown ingredients along the way or at thefinishedfood stage. In this scenario, testing is still necessary to confirm the identity of the ingredient at various control points along the way but the testing is of a sample containing known, rather than unknown, ingredients and therefore is much less complicated.


72


Threshold Testing at Local Grain Elevators To comply with labeling laws it is not necessary to determine the exact concentration of a biotech ingredient, only to state with confidence that the food does or does not contain biotech ingredients above a specified threshold. This can be accomplished by establishing the identity of a biotech crop at the level of the farmer and then maintaining a chain of custody throughout the entire production process. The most important point of control in the entire system is at the initial sale of grain by the farmer to the local elevator. At this point it is critical to establish whether the load contains biotech grain before it becomes pooled with product streams designated to be low or 'non-GMO*. A key element of this type of testing is that it must be done on site at the grain elevator and must be completed before the truck unloads its contents. During harvest trucks are typically lined up in a queue waiting to unload (Figure 1). Truckloads of commodities like soy and corn are normally subjected to routine testing, inspection and grading at the elevator for such things as moisture or oil content, size, dockage, etc. The system begrudgingly accommodates waiting for these procedures because they determine the price that the hauler will get for the load, but waiting for a test result prevents the hauler from bringing in

Figure J. Trucks filled with corn waiting to unload at a local elevator.



73 additional loads from the field. Therefore, cost effective tests for biotech commodities must fit within the normal testing regimen, i.e., utilize existing equipment, infrastructure and personnel and be executed during the time frame of the normal inspection process. A testing methodology has been developed using rapid lateral flow test strips to detect the new protein found in a biotech crop in loads of harvested grain at local elevators. The contents of the truck are sampled according to procedures established by the United States Department of Agriculture's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) using existing equipment and facilities. The performance of the test strips themselves is certified by GIPSA as part of their Rapid Test Performance Evaluation Program (4).

Figure 2 shows an example of a representative sample being taken from a truck using a vacuum probe. The representative sample moves through the sample acquisition line (Figure 3) to a location where normal inspection and grading procedures are performed and a portion of this sample is taken for analysis of biotech grain (Figure 4). A specified number of kernels or beans are ground in an ordinary kitchen blender or coffee grinder (Figure 5), shaken with a fixed volume of water and a small aliquot of the extract is incubated with the protein test strip for approximately 5 minutes. If the load contains greater than a specified concentration of biotech grain then the test reads positive, if the

Figure 2. A representative sample of corn being taken from a truck with a vacuum probe.



74

Figure 3. A representative sample of grain taken from a truck moves through a sample acquisition line to the sample testing area close to where the grain is unloaded from the vehicle.

Figure 4. The representative sample from the truck is collected on site at a location where testing takes place.



75

Figure 5. A fixed number of kernels are ground together, extracted with water and the extract is tested with a test strip.

concentration is below the critical threshold the test reads negative. Figure 6 shows the reactivity of a strip test for detection of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) CrylAb corn with various percentages of MON810 Bt corn mixed with 'nonGMO' corn. The strip test methodology is based on a simple statistical procedure for estimating the probability of detecting one positive (biotech) kernel in a large number of negatives (5). Essentially the user defines the threshold concentration of biotech grain that they are interested in detecting (e.g., 1 or 5%) and the confidence they require for detecting that threshold (e.g., 95 or 99%), and then selects the number of samples to test in order to achieve the desired confidence. The number of kernels that can be ground together for analysis is determined by the absolute sensitivity of the strip test and is fixed by the test procedure in a way that the presence of a single biotech kernel in the sample will always give a positive response. The procedure is not quantitative in the sense that it does not report a discrete value, but just like a quantitative method, the result is reported in terms of statistical confidence in the outcome and thus the reliability of the result is the same as a quantitative method. An important consideration when using protein tests in this manner is the natural variability of protein expression found in different varieties of biotech crops expressing the same protein, and even variability between kernels or beans



76

0%

0.5%

1.0%

5.0%

10%

50% 100%

Figure 6. Reactivity of lateral flow test strips for Bacillus thuringiensis CrylAb protein with various percentages ofMON810 corn.

within a single variety. The approach to managing this variability is to validate that the method is sensitive enough to detect the presence of a single kernel of the lowest expressing variant in commercial production. In practice, the developers of such tests evaluate as many different varieties as possible and the maximum number of kernels prescribed in the test procedure is designed to insure detection of the lowest expressing variants. Indeed, the GIPSA Rapid Test Performance Evaluation Program certifies test kit performance based on low-level protein expressing varieties.

Testing Processed Food Fractions Testing of raw agricultural commodities is important because it characterizes the inputs to the food production process, but there are applications for testing that involve processed grain, such as flour and meal, highly processed intermediate food fractions and finished foods. The issues with testing processed food fractions are the same for both protein and DNA methods, i.e., quantification and validation. Figure 7 illustrates the performance of a Cry9c protein ELISA method that has been validated for quantifying StarLink corn in samples of corn flour and meal. Once the raw agricultural commodity, beans or kernels, are ground together and no longer exist as discrete units, it is not



77

Expected Concentration (% StarLink) Figure 7. Quantitative protein ELISA methods have been developed for use with processed fractions of biotech grain such as StarLink Cry9c corn.

possible to use the statistical methodology used with the strip tests to determine the probability that the batch of material being tested is above or below the specified threshold concentration, therefore the test must be capable of assigning a discrete value for %GMO. The issue with quantification is not simply whether a method can assign a %GMO value to a sample, but what the precision and confidence are around that value. Equally important is the accuracy of the test or how close the quantitative value is to the 'true' or 'correct' concentration in the sample. Factors that affect the precision of the final quantitative value include biological variability of the crop, the sample preparation procedure and the variability inherent within the analytical method. With respect to protein methods, biological variability (e.g., protein expression levels) can be relatively high and may significantly impact precision of the final quantitative value (5). DNA methods may be affected by variability from factors such as gene copy numbers within a crop species, the presence of 'stacked' genes in the sample (6), and the number of gene copies present in the aliquot of extracted DNA taken for PCR analysis (7). The manner in which a sample is prepared may affect the capacity of a test to quantify both protein and DNA. Protein immunoassays that are capable of detecting novel biotech proteins in relatively unprocessed samples of flour and


78


2.0 ι

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

% Roundup Ready Figure 8. Protein EUS A method employing antibodies selected for specificity to processed and heat denatured fractions of soybeans.

meal may not detect these same proteins after they have been subjected to various degrees of processing (5). It is a common misconception that because some antibodies recognize target proteins based on the three-dimensional conformation of the protein, and that processing steps like heat denature such conformations, that antibody-based methods cannot be used on processed foods. This misconception exists despite ample evidence to the contrary (8). There are a number of strategies to overcoming conformational dependence of an immunoassay by developing antibodies that recognize the denatured protein, including immunizing animals with protein that has been deliberately denatured and peptide fragments representing continuous epitopes of the protein. Figures 8 and 9 show examples of protein immunoassays for CP4 EPSPS that have been validated with highly processed fractions of soybean. While it is generally held that DNA is a relatively stable molecule and therefore not susceptible to differences in sample processing, it has been demonstrated that small differences in the procedure of preparing even relatively lightly processed ground soybean certified reference materials affected the capacity of PCR to quantify GMO (9), while a protein ELISA method was unaffected (10). In an ongoing effort to evaluate methods for measuring biotech


79


4 η

% Roundup Ready Figure 9. ELISA method for quantification of Roundup Ready in processed fractions of soybean.

soybean and corn in processed foods, the Working Party on Food Authenticity in the United Kingdom prepared samples of finished foodstuffs containing known concentrations of biotech ingredients and analyzed the samples by real-time quantitative PCR. To date, the results have shown that this technique can differentiate between foods made from "GM-free soya" and those containing much higher levels of biotech soy (i.e., qualitative analysis), but that when the concentration of biotech soy was approximately 1% GMO, "...accurate measurement may only be obtained by analysing the soya ingredient before processing" (11). To prove that a test yields accurate results it is necessary to prepare the specific sample type from starting materials containing known concentrations of biotech ingredients according to the same procedure by which the sample is made. In this way the protein and DNA have been subjected to the same processing as the sample, and other substances co-extracted in the sample that may interfere with the performance of the test are the same. 'Spiking' purified protein or DNA into extracts of food samples provides information regarding interfering substances and matrix effects but does not control for the direct effects of sample processing on the target protein and DNA. Even relatively simple additions to a food substance can impact the performance of a method.



80

For example, a method validated for corn flour may not yield the same results with a blended flour composed of corn, wheat, rye and barley (9). Ideally, it would be desirable to have highly characterized reference materials containing known concentrations of biotech ingredients prepared by all manner of different procedures to use as standards and calibrators for test methods (72). In reality this is not a practical solution. Production of reference materials is difficult, costly, and to-date, only a handful of such reference materials have been produced. All of these reference materials are essentially ground grain rather than processed food fractions. Given the proprietary nature of food production processes, and the magnitude, cost and complexity of the task to make such reference materials it is likely that only limited numbers and types of references will become commercially available. Unless a method is validated with the sample it is intended to be used with the accuracy of the method cannot be determined and unless or until standardized reference materials become available the true accuracy of quantitative GMO tests remains an open question.

Testing Strategies for the Future Given the considerable variabilities affecting the precision of quantitative GMO test methods and the uncertainties associated with accuracy, quantification of GMO in processed food fractions and finished foods remains a complex, costly and time consuming endeavor. At present, the primary motivation for testing is to determine whether a sample contains unapproved biotech ingredients or whether a sample contains approved ingredients above or below a threshold concentration to assess compliance with food labeling regulations. In the first case quantitative methods are not necessary, in the second, a discrete value is not necessary, only high confidence that the value is below the specified threshold. It has often been observed that the United States favors protein testing while Europe prefers DNA testing. One of the reasons for this is the difference in rationale for testing. The United States is a producer of biotech crops and its' focus is on control and distribution. The objective of testing in this case is to manage business risk, and rapid, cost-effective protein tests are valued at a premium. Threshold testing methods of grain that yield very high statistical confidence in the outcome of the test, provide the reliability required to control biotech ingredients in the system. Europe is primarily a consumer of biotech products and the objective of testing is to determine regulatory compliance. In this case, the cost and time of analysis are not the primary factors governing testing. The analysis is necessarily complex because a laboratory may test any food substance and attempt to determine the concentration of any and all potential biotech ingredients. The



81 analyst has no prior information about the types and concentrations of biotech ingredients that may be in the sample, and has no reference materials with which to calibrate the method. Unfortunately, as long as matrix-matched reference materials are not available and methods have not been validated with the specific food substance to be tested, the reliability of the quantitative result is open to technical challenge. Quantitative analysis of an unknown sample is complicated, time-consuming and costly, and for these reasons will be limited to applications where the stakes are high. An alternative to quantitative analysis is the implementation of identity preservation systems that establish the biotech status of the crop when it is harvested and then control the distribution and processing of the material in a way that the concentration is known at any given point along the way. It is still important to test at critical control points along the entire process to make sure that there hasn't been an inadvertent error along the way, but in this scenario, the objective of the analysis is simply to confirm the identity and concentration of a known sample. In this way the analysis is very much simplified and does not need to be quantitative. Rapid protein tests capable of establishing the biotech status of consignments of grain with high degrees of statistical confidence at the front end of the food production chain are an important component of a larger identity preservation system that enables food producers to label finished foods in compliance with food labeling laws.

References 1. 2. 3.

4.

5.

6.

StarLink: Lessons Learned; Food Traceability Report; CRC Press LLC: Washington, DC, 2001. Regulation (EC) No. 49/2000; Off. J. Euro. Comm. 2000, L6, 13-14. Law Concerning Standardization and Proper Labelling of Agricultural and Forestry Products (Law No. 108 of 1999); Labelling Standards for Genetically Modified Foods (Notification No. 517); Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; March 31, 2000. USDA, GIPSA, Directive 9181.2, Performance Verification of Rapid Tests for the Detection of Biotechnology Events. February 7, 2002, URL http://www.usda.gov/gipsa/biotech/rapidtest.htm. Stave, J.W. 2002. Protein immunoassay methods for detection of biotech crops: Applications, limitations and practical considerations. J. AOAC Int. 2002, 85(3), 780-786. Anklam, E.; Gadani, F.; Heinze, P.; Pijnenburg, H.; Van Den Eede, G. Analytical methods for detection and determination of genetically modified organisms in agricultural crops and plant-derived food products. Eur. Food. Res. Technol 2002, 214, 3-26.


82

7.

Kay, S.; Van den Eede, G. The limits of GMO detection. Nature

8.

Brett, G.M.; Chambers, S.J.; Huang, L.; Morgan, M.R.A. Design and development of immunoassays for detection of proteins. Food

Biotechnology 2001, 19, 405.

Control, 1999, 10, 401-406.

9.

Hubner, P.; Waiblinger, H.; Pietsch, K.; Brodmann, P. Validation of PCR methods for quantitation of genetically modified plants in food. J. AOAC Int. 2001, 84(6), 1855-1864. 10. Trapmann, S.; Schimmel, H.; and Pauwels, J. European reference materials for the detection of genetically modified soybeans and corn. 114 Annual Meeting of AOAC International; Philadelphia, PA; September 10-14, 2000. 11. Working Party on Food Authenticity, Methodology Report, August, 2000. Evaluation of Real Time PCR for the Quantitative Determination of Genetically Modified Soya in Processed Foods. 12. Stave, J.W. Detection of new or modified proteins in novel foods derived from GMO - future needs. Food Control 1999, 10, 367-374.


th


Enabling Grain Distribution and Food Labeling Using Protein

Recommend Documents